Patents of his own will and power absolute without assent of Parliament he be so lawfully intituled to that he doth impose as that thereby he doth alter the property of his subjects goods and is enabled to recover these impositions by course of Law I think he cannot and I ground my opinion upon these foure reasons 1. It is against the naturall frame and constitution of the policie of this kingdome which is jus publicum regni and so subverteth the fundamentall Law of the Realme and induceth a new forme of state and government 2. It is against the municipall Law of the Land which is jus privatum the Law of property and of private right 3 It is against divers Statutes made to restraine our King in this point 4. It is against the practice and action of our Common wealth contra morem majorum and this is the modestest rule to limit both Kings Prerogatives and Subjects Liberties Upon the first and fourth of these foure principal grounds I will more insist then upon the second and third both for that in their own nature they are a more proper matter for a Councel of State to the judgement of which I apply my discourse and they have not been enforced by others As also for that the other two as more fit for a barre and the Courts of ordinary justice have by some professors of the Law been already most leardnedly and exquisitely discussed For the first it will be admitted for a rule and ground of State that in every Common-wealth and government there be some rights of Soveraignty jurae Majestatis which regularly and of common right doe belong to the Soveraign power of that State unless Custome or the provisional ordinance of that State doe otherwise dispose of them which Soveraigne power is potestas suprema a power that can controule all other powers and cannot be controuled but by it self It will not be denied that the power of imposing hath so great a trust in It by reason of the mischiefes may grow to the Common-wealth by the abuses of it that it hath ever been ranked among those rights of Soveraign power Then is there no further question to be made but to examine where the Soveraigne power is in this Kingdome for there is the right of imposition The Soveraigne power is agreed to be in the King but in the King is a twofold power the one in Parliament as he is assisted with the consent of the whole State the other out of Parliament as he is sole and singular guided merely by his own will And if of these two powers in the King one is greater than the other and can direct and controule the other that is Suprema Potestas the Soveraigne power and the other is subordinata It will then be easily proved that the power of the King in Parliament is greater than his power out of Parliament and doth rule and controule it for if the King make a grant by his Letters Patents out of Parliament it bindeth him and his successors he cannot revoke it nor any of his Successours But by his power in Parliament he may defeate and avoyd it and therefore that is the greater power If a judgement be given in the Kings Bench by the King himselfe as may be and by the Law is intended a writ of Error to reverse this judgement may be sued before the King in Parliament which writ must be granted by the Chancellor upon bill indorsed by the King himself 1. H. 7.19 6. Lib. Intrac fol. 302. c. 1. as the book is 1 H 7.19.6 And the forme of the writ of Error is that it being directed to the Chiefe Justice of the Kings Bench Quia in recordo prâ—cessu ac etiam in redditione judicii lâ—quelae quae fuit in Curiâ nostrâ coram nobis Error intervenis manifestus ad grave damnum c. Nos errorem si quis fuerit modo debito corrigi pariibus praedictis plenam celerem justitiam fieri volentes in hâc parte vobis mandamus quòd Recordum processum loquelae illius cum omnibus ea tangentibus in praesens Parliamentum nostrum sub sigillio tuo distiâ—â—â—è apertèmittas hoc breve ut inspectis c. nâ—s de Consilto advisamento Domi norum spiritualium temporalâ—um ac Communitatis in Parliamento nostro praedicto existentis alterius pro errore illo corrigenâ—o fieri faciamus quâ—d de jure secundum legem consuetudinem Regni nostri Angliae fuerit faciendum So you see the Appeal is from the King out of the Parliament to the King in Parliament the writ is in his name the rectifying and correcting the errours is by him but with the assent of the Lords and Commons The booke is not so that the CoÌ„mons should meddle than which there can be no stronger evidence to prove that his power out of Parliament is subordinate to his power in Parliament for in Acts of Parliament be they lawes grounds or whatsoever whatsoever else the Act and power is the Kings but with the assent of the Lords and Commons which maketh it the most soveraigne and supreame power above all and controulable none Besides this right of imposing there be others in the Kingdome of the same nature As the power to make lawes the power of Naturalization the power of erection of arbitrary Government the power to judge without appeale the power to legitimate all which do belong to the King only in in Parliament Others there be of the same nature that the King may exercise out of Parliament which right is grown unto him in them more in those others by the use and practice of the Common-wealth as denization coynage making warr which power the King hath time out of minde practised without the gain-saying and murmuring of his subjects But these other powers before mentioned have ever been executed by him in Parliament and not otherwise but with the reluctation of the whole Kingdome Can any man give me a reason why the King can only in Parliament make lawes No man ever read any law whereby it was so ordained and yet no man ever read that any King practised the contrary Therefore it is the originall right of the Kingdome and the very natural constitution of our State and policy being one of the highest rights of Soveraigne power So it is in naturalization legitimation and the rest of that sort before recited It hath been alleaged that those which in this Cause have enforced their reasons from this Maxime of ours That the King cannot alter the Law have diverted from the question I say under favor they have not for that in effect is the very question now in hand for if he alone out of Parliament may impose he altereth the Law of England in one of these two maine fundamental points He must either take his Subjects goods from them without assent of the party which is against the Law or else he
to be eased of part because it was too great 36. E. 3. nu 26. Three shillings and four pence upon a sacke of VVool ibid. 38. E. 3 n. 26 21. E. 3. n. 11. all taken off and no excuse made for the smalness for 21 E 3. nu 11 two shillings a sacke two shillings tonnage and six pence poundage 50 E. 3. nu 163. R. Parl. 25. E. 3. nu 163. A great complaint was made in Parliament by the Commons that an imposition of a penny was set upon wools for Tonage over and above the ancient due which was but a penny and so the subject was charged with two pence Also that a penny was exacted for Mesonage which was but an halfe penny which Impositions the Record doth express did amount to an hundred pounds a yeere This petty imposition was as much stood upon in point of right as the other great one of fourty shillings and was taken off upon complaint in Parliament without either justification or excuse for the smalness of it My sixth observation is that those which have advised the setting on of impositions without assent of Parliament have been accused in Parliament forgiving that advice as of a great offence in the State and have suffered sharpe censure and great disgrace by it Neither doe I finde that the quality of the person hath extenuated the blame as 50. E. 3 William L. Latimer Chamberlaine to the King and one of his private Councell was accused by the Commons in Parliament of divers deceits and extortions and misdeeds and among other things that he had procured to be set upon Wooll Wooll-fells and other Merchandizes new Impositions to wit upon a sack of Wool eleven shillings which the L. Latimer sought to excuse because he had the consent and good liking of the Merchants first But judgment was given against him that he should be committed to prison be fined and ransomed at the Kings will and be put from being of the Council and this procuring of Impositions to be set on without assent of Parliament is expresly set down in the entry of the judgment for one of the causes of his censure Richard Lyons a Farmer of the Customs in London the same year was accused in Parliament for the same offence Rot. Par. 50. E. 3. n. 17 18.19 20. he pleaded he did it by the Kings command and had answered the money to the Kings Chamber Yet was condemned and adjudged in Parliament to be committed to Prison and all his Lands and Goods were seised into the Kings hand and at the last the hate against these authors of Impositions grew so that 50. E. 3. in the same Parliament an petition was exhibited in Parliament to make this a capital offence The Record is very short and therefore I will set it down verbatim Item prie le dit Common que soit ordaine per Statute en cest present Parliament de touts ceux queux â—y en avant mittont ou font pur lour singuler profit novels Impositions per lour authoritie dâ—mesâ—n accrocheants al eux â—ny ul power de rien que soit establi en Parliament sans assent de Parliament que ils eyent judgement de viâ— member de forisfacture To this rough Petition the King gave a milde and temperate Answer Courre la Common ley come estoit al avant use My seventh Observation is the cessation between 50. E. 3. after this censure in Parliament and 4. Mariae almost two hundred years during which time no King did attempt to impose without assent of Parliament And yet we finde in the Parliament Rolls that there was not one of those Kings that reigned in that time but had Impositions granted him upon fit occasion by Act of Parliament upon all Goods and Merchandizes and at divers times during their reigns sometimes more sometimes less upon the Ton and pound but ever for a time certain and indefinite so the use of them was not given over but the power of imposing was so clearly and undoubtedly held to be in the Parliament as no King went about to practice the contrary But to this cessation that was of great weight and credit in our evidence a colour was given by the other side to avert the inference made upon it against the Kings right that is that during that time there was so great a Revenue grew to the Crown by double Custom paid for all Merchandizes both in England and at Callis by reason of an Act of Parliament made 8. H 4. which was that no goods should be carried out of the Realm but to Callis and by reason that the Merchants paid Custom both there and here for the same goods that in the seven and twentieth year of Henry the sixth the Custom of Callis was 68000. pounds the year a great sum if you consider the weight of money then what price it bare and by reason hereof Princes not delighting to charge their murmuring Subjects but when need is being so amply supplied otherwise did not put that Prerogative in practice To this I Answer That if that were true that was urged it might be some probable colour of the forbearance of imposing but I finde it quite contrary and that by Record For there was no such restraint of all Commodities not to be transported to any place but Gallis but onely Woolls Wool-fells Leather Tinn and Lead that were staple Wares which by the Statute 37 E. 3. were to be transported thither and not to any other place and the staple continued at that place for the most part from that time untill long after 27. H. 6. but there was no double Custom paid both here and there by the same owner Callais at those times were so far short of that which hath been alledged in 27. H. 6. that it appeareth in an Act of Parliament 27. H. 6. cap. 2 printed in the book at large 27. H. 6. cap. 2. That the Commons do complain That whereas in the time of E. 3. the Custom of Callais was 68000 pounds per annum at that time which was 27. H. 6. by reason of the ill usage of Merchants it was fallen to be but 12000 pounds the year so then there was great cause in that respect to have set on Impositions by reason of that great abatement of Customs and yet it was not then offered to be done without assent of Parliament But if you look a little further into the extreme necessities of those times you shall finde there never was greater cause to have strained Prerogatives for it appeareth in an Act of Parliament 28. H. 6. that it was then declared in Parliament by the Chancellor and Treasurer who demanded relief of the people for the King both for payment of his debts and for his yearly livelioood that the King was then indebted 372000. pounds which now by the weight of money amounteth to above 1100000. pounds and that his ordinary expences were more then his yearly revenue by 19000. pounds
this the King may restrain the passage of the person and of the goods therefore he may suffer them not to pass but sub mode paying such an Imposition for his sufferance as he shall set upon them For the grounds and propositions laid in this objection I shall not be much against any one of them others of them must be qualified ere they be confessed but the inference and argument made upon them I utterly deny for in it there is mutatio hypothesis and a transition from a thing of one nature to a thing of another As the premises are of a power in the King onely fiduciary and in point of trust and government the conclusion infers a right of interest and gain Admit the King had Custodiam portuum yet he hath but the custody which is trust and not Dominium utile he hath power to open and shut upon consideration of publike good to the people and State but not to make gain and benefit by it the one is protection the other is expilation The Ports in their own nature are publike Portus sunt Publici free for all to go in and out yet for the common good this liberty is restrainable by the wisdom and policy of the Prince who is put in trust to discern the times when this natural liberty shall be restrained 1 H. 7.10 In 1. H. 7. fol. 10 in the case of the Florentines for their Allome the Lord Chief Justice Hussey doth write a Case that in the time of E. 4. a Legate from the Pope being at Calice to come into England it was resolved in full Council as the Book saith before the Lords and Judges that he should not have licence to come into England unless he would take an Oath at Calice that he would bring nothing with him that should be prejudicial to the King and his Crown The King by the Common Law may send his Writ Ne exeas regnum to any Subject of the Realm but the surmise of the Writ is Quia datum est nohis intelligi quod tu versus partes exteras absque licentia nostra clam destinas te divertere quam plurimâ— nobis coronae nostrae prejudicia prosequi Fitzh N. B. 85. b. So in point of Government Fitzh N. B 15 â—b and common good of the Realm he may restrain the person But to conclude therefore he may take money not to restrain is to fell Government trust and common Justice and most unworthy the divine Office of a King But let us compare this power of the King in foraign affairs with the like power he hath in Domestick Government There is no question but that the King hath the custody of the gates of all the Towns and Cities in England as well as all the Ports and Havens and upon consideration of the Weal publike may open and shut them at his pleasure as if the infection of the sickness be dangerous in places vicine to the City of London the King may command that none from those places shall come into the City May he therefore set an Imposition upon those that he suffereth to come into the City So if by reason of infection he forbid the bringing of Wares and Merchandizes from some Cities or Towns in this Kingdom to any great Fare or Mart shall he therefore restrain the bringing of Goods thither unless money be given him by way of Imposition The King in his discretion in point of equity and for qualifying the rigor of the Law may enjoyn any of his Subjects by his Chancellor from suing in his Court of Common Law May he therefore make a benefit by restraining all from suit in his Courts unless they pay him an Imposition upon their Suits In 2. E. 3. in the case of the Earl of Richmond before-cited 2. E. 3.7 the King had granted unto the men of great Yarmouth that all the Ships that arrived at the Port of Yarmouth which consisted of three several Ports Great Yarmouth Little Yarmouth and Gerneston should arrive all at Great Yarmouth and at no other place within that Port. The lawfulness of this Patent being in question in the Kings Court it was reasoned in the Kings behalf for the upholding of the grant as it is now that the King had the custody of the Port he might restrain Merchants fron landing at all in his Kingdom Therefore out of the same power might appoint where and in what Haven they should land and no other This Patent was demurred on in the Kings Bench as being granted against the Law but the Case depending was adjourned into Parliament for the weight and consequence of it and there the Patent was condemned and a Law made against such and the like grants 9. E. 3. cap. 1. The Presidents that were vouched for maintenance of this power of restraint in the King were four produced almost in so many hundred years Rot. Par. 2. E. 1. n. 16. Rot. fin 2. E. 1. n. 17. Ro. claus 10. E. 3. dor 31. Ro. claus 17. H. 6. in dors whereof two were in the second year of E. 1. one in the tenth year of E. 3. another in the seventeenth year of H. 6. since which time we hear of none but by Act of Parliament as they had been usually and regularly before To these I will give answer out of themselves out of the common Law out of divers Statutes and out of the practice of the Commonwealth The restaint in the time of E. 1. the one of them was to forbid the carrying of Wooll out of the Realm the other was to forbid all Traffick with the Flemings That of 10. E. 3. was to restrain the exportation of Ship-timber out of the Realm That of 17. H. 6. to prohibite Traffique with the Subjects of the Duke of Burgundy These presidents are rare yet they have in them inducements out of publique respects to the Common-wealth for the rule of Common Law in this case I take it to be as the reverend Judge Sir Anthony Fitzherbert holds in his Writ of Ne exeas regnum in Nat. Br. that by the Common Law any man may go out of the Kingdom Fitzh N. B. 85. but the King may upon causes touching the good of the Commonwealth restrain any man from going by his Writ or Proclamation and if he then go it is a contempt This opinion of his is confirmed by the Book Dier 1. El. 165. Dier 13. El. 296. Eliz. fol. 165. Dier 12. 13. Eliz. Dier 296. In like manner if a Subject of England be beyond sea and the King send to him to repair home if he do it not his Lands and goods shall be seised for the contempt and this was the case of William de Britain Earl of Richmond 19. E. 2. He was sent by the King into Gascoyne on a message 19. E. 2. and refused to return for which contempt his Goods Chattels Lands and Tenements were seised into the Kings hands The
cap. 1. that is enacted in parliament which is contained in the Proclamation 17. H. 6. cited for a president that is because the Duke of Burgundy made an Ordinance whereby the Traffick of the English Nation was restrained that therefore the Englishment should not traffick with the Subjects of the Duke of Burgundy The same thing enacted upon the like occasion 4 E. 4. c. 1 19. H. 7. cap. 21. 4. E. 4. c. 1. 19. H. 7. c. 21. The importation of divers Commodities forbidden as being prejudicial to the Manufactures within the Realm 6. H. 8. cap. 12. 6 H. 8. cap. 12. The exportation of Norfolk Wools out of the Realm forbidden 26. H. 8 cap. 10. 26. H. 8. cap. 10. Power is given to the King to order and dispose of the Traffick of Merchants at his pleasure and the reason is given because otherwise the Leagues and Amities with foreign Princes might be impeached by reason of restraint made by divers statutes then standing on foot whereby it appeareth that it was not then taken to be Law that the King had an absolute power in himself to order and dispose of the course of Traffick without help of a Statute 2 E. 6. c. 9 2. E. 6. cap. 9. Exportation of Leather restrained 1 2. Ph. Mar. 1 2. P. M.c. 5. The exportation of Herring Butter Cheese and other Victuals forbidden 18. Eliz. cap. 8. The exportation of Tallow 18. El. c. 8 Raw Hides Leather So in all times no use of Proclamations in matters of this nature but Acts of Parliament still procured Wherefore in mine opinion it behoveth them that do so earnestly urge this argument the King may restrain Traffick therefore may impose to prove better then they have done that the King may restrain Traffick of his own absolute power For as the natural policy and constitution of our Commonwealth is we may better say that is Law which is de more gentis then that which floweth from the reason of any man guided by his general notion and apprehension of power regal in genere not in individuo The last assault made against the right of the Kingdom was an Objection grounded upon policy and matter of State as t he it may so fall out that an Imposition may be set by a foreign Prince that may wring our people in which case the counterpoise is to set on the like here upon the Subjects of that Prince which policy if it be not speedily execucuted but stayed until a Parliament may in the mean time prove vain and idle and much damage may be sustained that cannot afterwards be remedied This strain of policy maketh nothing to the point of right our rule is in this plain Commonwealth of ours Oportet neminem esse sapientiorem legibus If there be an inconvenience it is fitter to have it removed by a lawful means then by an unlawful But this is rather a mischief then an inconvenience that is a prejudice in present of some few but not hurtful to the Commonwealth And it is more tolerable to suffer an hurt to some few for a short time then to give way to the breach and violation of the right of the whole Nation For that is the true inconvenience neither need it be so difficult or tedious to have the consent of the Parliament if they were held as they ought or might be but our surest guide in this will be the example of our Ancestors in this very case and that in the time of one of the most politick Princes that ever reigned in this Kingdom 7. H. 7. cap. 7. 7. H. 7. cap. 7. you shall finde an Act of Parliament in which it was recited that the Venetians had set upon the English Merchants that laded Malmeseys at Candy four duckets of gold upon a But which in sterling is eighteen shillings the But. It was therefore enacted that every Merchant stranger that brought Malmsey into this Kingdom should pay eighteen shillings the But over and above the due Custom used this Imposition to endure until they of Venice had set aside that of four duckets the But upon the Englishmen Much hath been learnedly uttered upon this argument in the maintenance of the peoples right and in answering that which hath been pressed on the contrary but my meaning is not to express in this Disconrse all that hath or may be said on either side but onely to make a remembrance somewhat larger of that which I my self offered as my symbolum towards the making up of this great rekoning of the Commonwealth which if it be not well audited may in time cost the Subjects of England very dear My hope is of others that labored very worthily in this business that they will not suffer their pains to die and therefore I have forborn to enter into their Province I will end with that saying of that true and honest Counsellor Philip Comines in his fifth book the 18. chapter Ph. Com. l. 5 c. 18. That it is more honorable for a King to say I have so faithful and obedient Subjects that they deny me nothing I demand then to say I levy what me list and I have priviledges so to do After the Kings Right to Impose had been thorowly examined in Parliament and there determined not to be in him alone without assent of Parliament among other Petitions of grievance given unto his Majesty this hereafter was concerning Impositions THe policy and constitution of this your Majesties Kingdom appropriates unto the Kings of this Realm with assent of Parliament as well the soveraign power of making Laws as that of taxing or imposing upon the Subjects Goods or Merchandizes wherein they justly have such a propriety as may not without their consent be altered or changed This is the cause that the people of this Kingdom as they have ever shewed themselves faithful and loving to their Kings and ready to aid them in all their just occasions with voluntary contributions so have they been ever careful to preserve their own Liberties and Rights when any thing hath been come to prejudice or impeach the same And therefore when their Princes either occasioned by War or by their over-great bounty or by any other necessity have without consent of Parliament set on Impositions either within the Land or upon commodities exported or imported by the Merchants they have in open Parliament complained of it in that it was done without their consents and thereupon never failed to obtain a speedy and full redress without any claim made by the Kings of any Power or Prerogative in that point And though the Law of Propriety be originally and carefully preserved by the common Laws of this Realm which are as antient as the Kingdom it self yet those famous Kings for the better contentment and assurance of their loving Subjects agreed that this old fundamental Right should be further declared and established by Act of Parliament wherein it is provided that no
all rules and bounds of settled government and leave in the Subject no property of his own neither do you by this advance the Kings power and prerogative Bracton l. 1. c. 8. but you make him no King for as Bracton saith Rex est ubi dominatur lex non voluntas So we see that the power of imposing and power of making Laws are convertibilia coincidentia and whosoever can do the one can do the other And this was the opinion of Sir John Fortescue that reverend and honorable Judge a very learned professor of the Common Law and Chief Justice of the Kings Bench in the time of Henry 6. Fortese de laudibus Leg. Aug. c. 9. His words are these in his Book De laudibus Legum Angliae cap. 9. Non potest Rex Angliae ad libitum leges mutare rognisui principatu namque nedum regali sed politico ipse dominatur Si regali tantum praeesses iis leges mutare posset tallagia quoque caetera onera imponere ipsis inconsultis quale dominium leges civiles indicant cum dicunt quod principi placuerit legis habet vigore◠sed longè aliter potest Rex politicis imperans quia nec leges ipse sine subditorum assensu mutars poterit nec subjectum populum reuitentem onerare peregrinis impositionibus In which place I must interpret unto you that peregrina impositiones be not strange and unheard of impositions as was urged by the worthy Gentleman that spake last but impositions upon traffick into and out of forain Countries which is the very thing in question Further in the thirty sixth Chapter Fortesc de laud. Leg. Ang. cap. 36. he saith of the King of England Neque Rex ibidem per se aut ministros suos tallagia Subsidia aut alia quaevis onera imponit ligeis suis aut leges eorum mutat vel novas condit sine concessione vel assensu totius regni sui in Parliamento So he maketh these two powers of making Law and imposing to be concomitant in the same hand and that the one of them is not without the other he giveth the same reason for this as we do now but in other words because as he saith in England it is principatus mixtus politicus the King hath his soveraign power in Parliament assisted and strengthened with the consent of the whole Kingdom and therefore these powers are to be exercised by him only in Parliament In other Countries they admit the ground of the Civil Law quod principi placuerit legis habet vigorem Because they have an absolute power to make Law they have also a power to impose which hath the force of a Law in transferring property Philip Comines Ph. Com. l 4. cap. 1. l. 5. cap. 8. that lived at that times in his fourth Book the first Chapter the fifth Book the eighth Chapter taketh notice of this policy of England and commends it above all other States as settled in most security And further to our purpose laieth this ground That a King cannot take one penny from his Subjects without their consent but it is violence And you may there note the mischiefs that grew to the Kingdom of France by the voluntary impositions first brought in by Charles the Seventh and ever since continued and encreased to the utter impoverishment of the Common people and the loss of their free Councel of three Estates And if this power of imposing were quietly setled in our Kings considering what the greatest use they make of assembling of Parliaments which is the supply of money I do not see any likelihood to hope for often meetings in that kind because they would provide themselves by that other means And thus much for my first reason grounded upon the natural constitution of the Policy of our Kingdom and the publike Right of our Nation 2. For the point of Common Law Com. Law which is my second reason it hath been well debated and nothing left unspoken that can be said in it and therefore I will decline to speak of that which other men have well discussed and the rather for that there is nothing in our Law-book directly and in point of this matter neither is the word imposition found in them Diec. 1. E. 165. until the case in my L. Dier 1. Eliz. 165. for we shall finde this business of an higher strain and alwaies handled elsewhere as afterwards shall appear yet I will offer some Answers to such Objections as have been made on the contrary in point of Common Law and have not been much stood upon by others to be answered The Objections that have been made are these That from the first Book of the Law to the last no man ever read any thing against the Kings power of imposing No Judgement was ever given against it in any of the Kings Courts at Westminster Other points of Prerogative as high as this disputed and debated his excess in them limited as in the book of 42. Ass pl. 5. 42. Aff. p. 9. where the Judges took away a Commission from one that had power given by it to him under the great Seal to take ones person and to seise his goods before he was indicted So Master Scrogs case 1 2 E. Dier 175 1. 2. El Dier 175 the power of the King in making a Commission to determine a question of right depending between two parties notably debated and ruled against the King that he could not grant it To this I answer That cases of this nature of which the question now handled is have ever been taken to be of that extraordinary consequence in point of the Common right of the whole Kingdom that the States would never trust any of the Courts of ordinary Justice with the deciding of them but assumed the cognisance of them unto the high Court of Parliament as the fittest place to decide matters so much concerning the whole body of the Kingdom as 2. Ed. 3.7 it appears that Ed. 1. had granted a Charter to the men of Great Yarmouth that all the ships of Merchants coming to the Port of Yarmouth should land their goods at their Haven and not at any other Haven at that Port as at Garneston and Little Yarmouth which were members of that Port. This was very inconvenient for the Merchants and a great hurt to Traffick and therefore the Charter was questioned in the time of Ed. 2. and adjudged good by the Council But the parties not contented with this judgment in the second year of King E. 3. by an order in Parliament made upon a Petition there exhibited against this Grant brought a Scire facias out of the Chancery returnable in the Kings Bench to question again the lawfulness of the Patent and in that Suit the cause was notably debated and those Reasons much insisted upon that have been enforced in this case as that of the Kings power in the custody of the Ports
But the matter so depending in the ordinary Court of Justice a Writ came out of the Parliament and did adjourn it thither again where it gave occasion of a good Law to be made to prevent the like Grants and to make them void notwithstanding any Judgment given upon them and to make such Judgments also void The Statute is 9 E. 3. c. 1. And in the Parliament Rolls 9. E. 3. c. 1. Every Alien and Denizen may carry his Merchandise where it pleaseth him notwithstanding any Charter granted or Judgment thereupon 16 17. R. 2. 2 H. 4. num 109. we finde a notable Record which gives warrant for the proceeding in Parliament in this manner as hath been in this Case notwithstanding the Judgment in the Exchequer and declares to the Kingdom that notwithstanding the great wonder made by some men nothing hath been done in this business by those that serve in the Parliament but in imitation of their worthy Predecessors in the like case In the second year of H. 4. the Commons shew that in the time of R. 2. by the means of John Waltham Bishop of Salisbury Treasurer of England wrongfully without authority of Parliament and by reason of a Judgemet given in the Exchequer 16 17. R. 2. by the Barons there against certain Merchants of Bristol and other places passage had been taken for Wines otherwise then in ancient times had been and therefore they prayed they might pay their prise Wines in the manner they had used to pay notwithstanding any Judgment given in the Exchequer or other Ordinance made by the said Treasurer contrary to the antient usage which Petition the King granted and the Judgment thereupon became void and the prisage Wine hath been paid contrary to the Judgment ever since In 1. El. Dier 165. upon the complaint 1. El. Dier 265. made by the Merchants of the impositions set upon Cloth by Queen Mary by her absolute power without assent of Parliament The Cause was thought too weighty to be decided in any one Court but as it appeareth in the Book it was referred to all the Judges of England who divers times had conference about it So it may well be there is nothing against it in our year books for there is nothing of it Another Objection was this which was made in the last argument viz. That Custom is originally due by the Common Law of England it can then have no other ground or cause but meerly by the Kings royal Prerogative as a right and duty originally belonging to his Crown which if it be it must necessarily follow he may impose for that is but the exercising of that right To prove this was alleadged the case 39. E. 3.13 by which case it appeareth 39 E. 3.13 that King John had a Custom of eight pence on a Tun of Wine in the Port of Southampton but the Book doth not tell you that the King had it by prerogative and he might have it as well otherwise as by prescription or convention which shall rather be intended by reason of the certainty of the sum paied for if it were by prerogative he might take sometimes more sometimes less at his will the right being indefinite and the quantity limited onely by his own discretion A common person may have such a custom certain as 18. El. Dier 352. The Mayor of London hath the twentieth part of Salt brought into the City by Aliens 18 El. Dier 352 which is a great Imposition but is good by prescription originally and that received greater strength since by Acts of Parliament made for the confirmation of the Liberties and Customs of the City of London So it appeareth that John of Britain had Custom of the ships that arrived at his Port of Little Yarmouth Dier 43. worth twenty pounds per annum And these instances do inefer that a Custom may be otherwise then by prerogative and therefore it is no good argument to conclude the King had such a custom Therefore he had it by Prerogative The Book in 30. H. 8. Dier 43. 30 Hen. 8. Dier 43. was much pressed on this point which saith that Custom belonged to the King at Common Law and doth instance in Wooll Wooll-fells and Leather begun at the Common Law but abridged by the Statute of 14 E. 3. ca. 21. stat 1. 14 Ed. 3. c. 21. stat but this appeareth to be a great error and mistaking in the Book for we do finde that that Custom of Woolls Wooll-fells and Leather was begun by a Grant in Parliament as appeareth in Statute 15 E. 1. cap. 7. The words be granted to us by the Commonalty aforesaid and the last mention before was that the King had granted to the Bishops Earls Barons and all the Commonalty of the Land c. Novemb. 3. Ed. 1. The King recited in his Letter Patents That Prelati magnates ac tota communitas mercatorum Regni granted this new Custom And so the ground and motive of that opinion being false all grounded upon that must needs be erroneous It was objected That the King holdeth at this day the encrease of four pence in the pound over due Custom paid by Merchants Aliens according to the purport of the Charta mercatoria 31 E. 1. by meer right of Prerogative at the Common Law Rot. char 31. E. 1. num 42. in Turri for by that Grant of the Merchants he cannot hold it they being no Body Politick at the time of the Grant and therefore the Grant is meerly void to binde in succession and yet the Merchants Aliens do pay it at this day It is agreed That by the Common Law a contract with a number not incorporate bindeth not succession but we must take notice that they by whom that Grant was made of the augmentation of Custom by three pence in the pound and other encreases 31. E. 1. were Merchants Aliens who by the Law of Merchants and Nations may contract to bind their successors in matters of Traffick For their contracts are not ruled by the Common Law of the Land but by the Law of Nations per legem Mercatoriam as the Book case is 3. Ed. 4.10 and there was a good consideration given them by the King for this encrease of Custom as discharge of prise Wines for two shillings the Tun and other Immunities which all Merchants Aliens hold and enjoy at this day by force of that contract made 21 E. 1. For a stranger paieth now but two shillings the Tun for prisage whereas it standeth an Englishman in much more so as the rule of commutative Justice maketh the contract available to the King against the Merchants because he parteth with part of his prisage to the Merchant and maketh it available to the Merchant against the King because he giveth him encrease of Custom above that is due by Law But the Statute of 27 E. 3. cap. 26. heretofore cited doth make this point clear without scruple 27 E.
manifest and acknowledged by all yet if his own be detained from him by the King he hath no other Writ or Action to recover but a meer petition Supplicat Celsitudini c. So as if the word Petition to the King infer defect of right in the Petitioner there can be no case where the King can do the Subject wrong A second Objection out of the body of the Law is that the King doth release that imposition of forty shillings which implieth a right setled in him But to this I answer That it is no necessary inference wheresoever a release of right is for it is used for claim onely or where possession was though wrongful and that in majorem securitatem quia abundans cautela non nocet but in this case a Release was very expedient and for some respect necessary to extinguish a right the King had in this imposition against the Merchants themselves For this imposition though it were not set on by assent of Parliament yet was it not set on by the Kings absolute power but was granted to him by the Merchants themselves who were to be charged with it so the grievance was the violation of the right of the people in setting it on without their assent in Parliament not the damage that grew by it for that did onely touch the Merchants who could not justly complain thereof because it was their own act and grant This appeareth by two notable Records 22. E. 1. Origen in Scac. Rem Thes the one 22. E. 1. A Writ to the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer in Ireland to discharge the Merchants there of impositions on Woolls in which the King reciteth Licet in subsidium Guerrae Regis pro recuperandâ terrâ Vasconià mercatores gratanter concesserunt per biennium vel triennium si tantum duravit Guerra de sacco lanae c. The other Record is the Writ of publication In 26. E. 1. mem Scac. Rem Thes that in 26. E. 1. went out after the Statute of 25. in which Writ the King reciteth thus Cum nos ad instantiam Communitatis Regni nostri remiserimus custumam 40 s. nobis nuper in subsidium Guerrae noctrae contra Regem Franciae concessum c. A third Objection made out of the body of the Statute by those which have argued on the contrary part was upon these words that the King would take no such things without common consent by which words they conceived the intention of the Law was limited precisely to impositions set upon Wooll and not on other commodities which are not such things but other and for this they alledge this reason That it was not probable when the complaint was only for an imposition on Wooll that the King would give a remedy for other things not spoken of for which there was no cause of complaint To this a full answer is given many ways First out of the Saving in the Act which extends to other things then to Wooll as to Wooll-fells and Leather therefore the purview of the Act by these words such things extendeth to more then the Wooll for there needs no saving but for that which is contained in the purview Secondly The reason alledged that no more by likelihood should be remedied but for Wooll because onely that was complained of is false For the complaint of the Commons was not onely for this imposition on Wooll but divers other burthens and grievances of the like nature And this will appear if we compare all the parts of the Law the one with the other For this Law is in the form of a Charter written in French and beginneth Edward by the Grace of God c. and is an entire grant and Instrument without Fractions Sections and Chapters as it is now printed and containeth in it next before this last clause concerning the impositions on Woolls which in the printed Book is Cap. 6. That the King for no business from thenceforth will take no manner of aids mises nor prises but by common assent This word mises in French signifieth properly impositions derived of the word mitto in Latine to put so the word such things is a conclusion to all the premises and hath relation not onely to that which is made Cap. 7. by the Printer and concerneth the male toll of Woolls but to that precedent which is all other aids impositions and takings The Writ of publication of this Statute sent out to all parts in 26. E. 1. Mem. Scac. in 26. E. 1. Rem Thes maketh plain this construction the words of it are Concedentes quod custumam illam vel aliam sine voluntate vel communi assensu non capiamus These words vel aliam are indefinite and extend to any other whatsoever besides that of Woolls The Writ doth further discharge Merchants for the commodities of Wooll-fells and Leather which are not complained of by name in the Statute and therefore the Law was intended to other impositions as well as to those upon Woolls The Objedion made out of matter subsequent to the Statute was this that notwithstanding this Law of 25 E. 1. impositions that before the Statute had been set on other Merchandize then Woolls were still answered after the Statute and for instance of this was alledged 16. E. 1. Orig. R. Thes that whereas 16. E. 1. an imposition of 40 s. the Tun was set upon Wines brought into the Kingdom an accompt was made of this in the Exchequer in 26 E. 1. as by the Records there appeareth by which it seemeth that the Law of 25. E. 1 was not taken to extend to Wines and such other Commodities other then Woolls named in the Statute It is true such an imposition was se◠on by E. 1. in the sixteenth year of his reign 25 26 E. 1. de compt T. Mich. R. Thes and an accompt made for it 25 and 26. But it appeareth by the Record of the accompt that it was made for the time ended before the Statute made As from the eighteenth of May 16 E 1. to 23 Jul. 22. E. 1. But there is no Record that ever any accompt was made for any money received for that imposition for the time after the Statute made neither was it very willingly answered before for it appeareth by the Record that it was ten years after the setting of it The third Statute alledged on the behalf of the Subject is that 34. E. 1. c. 1. the words are these 34. E. 1. cap. 1. No tallage or aid shall be taken or levied by us or our heirs in our Realm without the good will and assent of our Arch-bishops Bishops Earls Barons Knights Burgesses and other freemen of the Land Against this was objected That this Statute was intended onely upon the Taxes and impositions of things The word Auxilium makes it clear that it is to be intended further then of things within the Realm for Tallagium is commonly intended of Domestical Taxes but
and so of right lastly he promâ—seth he would visit and comfort them beneficiis compensativis would give them recompence for those summes he had so raised of them which sheweth that he claimed them not as due for then he needed not give recompence for them In the one and twentieth yeere of E. 3. a petition was exhibited in Parliament Rot. Parl 21. E. 3. n. 16. that Levies be not made by Commission so they be in this case nor other things laid upon the people unless they be granted in Parliament The Kings answer is If any such impositions were made it was by great necessity and with assent of the Prelates Barons and some of the Commons present yet he will not that such Impositions not duly made be drawne in consequente Here the King acknowledgeth an Imposition not to be duly made though with the consent of the Higher House and some of the Commons because it was not in full Parliament much rather he would have thought so if it had been by the King a lone King E. 4. that was a rough and warlike Prince and was more beholding to his sword in the recovery of his right to the Crowne then to the affection of the people at a Parliament held the seventh yeere of his reigne made a Speech to the Commons Sir John Say being then Speaker in which Speech is contained very notable matter and very pertinent to our purpose and because the Record is not in print I will set downe the Kings Speech verbatim as it is entred upon the Parliament roll Rot. parl 7. E. 4. The Record begins Memorandum quod die veneris 3. die Parl. and then I will make a paraphrase upon it Iohn Say and ye Sirs come to this my Court of Parliament for the Commons of this my Realme The cause why I have cald and summoned this my present Parliament is that I purpose to live upon mine own and not to charge my subjects but in great and urgent causes concerning more the VVeale of themselves and also the defence of them and of this my Realme rather than mine owne pleasure as heretofore by Commons of this Land hath beene done and borne unto my progenitors in time of need wherein I trust that yee Sirs and all the Commons of this my Land will be as tender and kinde unto me in such cases as heretofore any Commons have been to any of my progenitours And for the good will kindness and true hearts that yee have borne continued and shewed to me at all times heretofore I thanke you as heartily as I can also I trust yee will continue in time coming for which by the grace of God I shall be to you as good and gracious a King and reigne as righteously upon you as ever did any of my progenitors upon Commons of this my Realme in dayes past and shall also in time of need apply my person for the VVeale and defence of you and of this my Realme not sparing my body nor life for any jeopardy that might happen to the same Out of this we may observe first the Kings Protestation to live of his owne and not to charge his subjects by which I gather he did acknowledge a certain and distinct property of that which way his subjects from that which was his own which excludeth the right to impose at his will for if that be admitted the subjects property is proprietas precariâ—â— not certaine how much of his is his owne for that is his which the King will leave him for there is no limit or restraint of the quantity the right being admitted but onely the Kings will The second thing I observe is this that in charging of his subjects he would confine himselfe between these two bounds the one it should bee in great and urgent causes concerning more the Weale of them and the defence of them and his Realme than his owne pleasure wherein he condemneth those occasions that grew upon excesse of private expence by over great bounty or otherwise and admitteth onely such as grow by reason of warres or other such like publique causes concerning the whole State the other bound or limit is that those burdens should be secundum morem majorum as heretofore had been done and borne by the Commons to his ancestours in time of need The third thing I observe is that he acknowledged these burdens did proceed out of their good will and kindness and not out of his right and prerogative out of these words that he trusted they would bee as tender and kinde to him in such cases as heretofore any Commons had been to his Progenitors And lastly wee may note the recompence promised by the King to his subjects for their good wills and kindness his goodness and grace his just and righteous government the jeopardy of his body and life for their Weale and defence Did this King assume to himselfe a right to lay burdens on his subjects at his own will without their assents that offered to buy them at his need with the price of his blood the most sacred relique in the kingdome My fourth observation is that in all petitions exhibited by the Commons in Parliament against Impositions the very knot of their griefe and the principal cause of their complaint hath been expressed in those petitions that the impositions have been without assent of Parliament by which is necessarily inferred that their griefe was in point of right not of burden In 11. Rot. parl 21. E. 3 nu 11. E 3. nu 11 the complaint of the Imposition of two shillings upon a sacke of Wooll two shillings upon a Tonne of Wine six pence upon aver de pois the cause of grievance expressed because it was done Sans assent de Commons 25 E. 3. n. 22. R. Parl. 25 E. 3. n. 22. In a petition the Commons complaine that an imposition upon Wools was set by the consent of the merchants they pray that Commissions bee not made upon such singular grants if they be not in full Parliament and if any such grants be made they may he held as void 17 E 3. n. 28. The Commons in their petition informe the King R. Parl. 17. E. 3. n. 28 it is against reason they should be charged with impositions set on by assent of Merchants and not in Parliament My fifth observation is that whensoever any petition was exhibited against impositions there was never any respect had of the quantity but they were ever intirely abated as well where they were small as where they were great no request ever made to make them less when they were great nor excuse made of their ease when they were exceeding small which sheweth that it was not the point of burden or excesse was respected in their complaint but the point of meere right 25 E. 3. nu 22. Fourty shilling set an imposition upon a sacke of Wooll R. Parl. 25. E. 3. nu 22. upon complaint all taken off and no fuit
yearly so if ever there was cause to put a King to his shifts it was then yet we see they did not venture to put in practice this supposed Prerogative It further appeareth in that Statute that the people among those reasons they alleadged why they were not able to retain the King gave this for one that they had so often granted him Tonnage and Poundage upon Merchandizes by which it appeareth he took nothing of Merchants by imposition without grant for if he had no doubt they would not have stuck to have put him in minde of it But I pray consider what became of this motion of the Chancellor and Treasurer The proposition had depended in Parliament many years the effect was the people entreated the King to resume all grants he had made from the beginning of his reign untill that time being the twenty eighth year of his reign excepting such as were made upon consideration valuable that he might so enable himself by that mean by which he had impoverished himself and the whole Kingdom This took effect and the Statute of Resumptions was thereupon made the same year which Record because it is not in print and declareth these things with great gravity and authority I will set down the very Text of it so much as is material to our purpose Prayen your Commons in this your present Parliament assembled to consider That where your Chancellor of your Realm of England 28. H. 6. Stat. de Resumpt in Turri Lond. not printed your Treasurer of England and many other Lords of your Council by your high commandment to your said Commons at your Parliament holden last at Westminster shewed and declared the State of this your Realm which was that ye were indebted 372000. l. which is grievous and that your livelihood in yearly value was but 5000 l. And forasmuch as this 5000 l. to your high and notable State to be kept and to pay your said debts will not suffice Therefore that your high Estate may be releived And furthermore it was declared That your expences necessary to your houshold without all other ordinary charge came to 24000 l. yearly which exceedeth every year in expence necessary over your livelihood 19000 l. Also pleaseth it your Highness to consider that the Commons of your said Realm be as well willing to their power for the releiving of your Highness as ever was people to any King of your Progenitors that raigned in your said Realm of England But your said Commons been so impoverished what by taking victual to your houshould and other things in your said Realm and nought paid for it and the quinzime by your said Commons so often granted and by the grant of Tunnage and Poundage and by the grant of Subsidy upon Woolls and other grants to your Highness and other lack of execution of Justice that your said poor Commons be full nigh destroyed and if it should continue longer in such great charge it would not in any wise be had ne born Wherefore pleaseth it your Highness the premisses graciously to consider and that ye by the advice and assent of your Lords Spiritual and Temporal and by the authority of this your present Parliament for the consideration of your high Estate and in comfort and ease of your poor Commons would take resume seise and retain in your hands and possession all honours c. This was very plain dealing by the people with their King and this is the success of the demand of supply and support had in those days being required in point of gratification without any recompence or retribution for it Thus then we have cleared this point that between 50. E. 3. and 4. Mariae there was not one Imposition set without assent of Parliament Queen Mary in the fourth year of her reign upon the Wars with France set an Imposition upon Clothes for this consideration That the Custom of Woolls was decayed by reason for the most part they were made into Clothes which afforded little Custom for that which in Wooll paid for Custom and Subsidy 40 s. made into Cloth paid but 4 s. 4 d. To recompence this by an indifferent equality there was set upon a Cloth 5 s. 6 d. which Imposition did not make up the loss sustained in the Custom of Wooll by 13 s. 4 d. in 40 s. This was Justum but not Juste This religious Prince invironed with infinite troubles in the Church and Commonwealth and much impoverished by her devotion in renouncing the profits of the Church-lands that were in the Crown by the suppression was the first that made digression from the steps of her worthy Progenitors in putting on that Imposition without assent of Parliament for that very consideration of the loss of Custom by turning of Wooll to Clothing came into treaty in the 24. year of E. 3. when the art of Clothing began first to be much practised in this Kingdom and then in the recompence of the loss so sustained in the decay of Custom of Woolls there was set upon a Cloth by Act of Parliament above the olde Custom 14 d. for a Denizen and for an Alien 21 d. This is recited in a Record in the Exchequer 48. E. 3. Rot. 2. R. Thes in origin But I pray you examine how this Imposition of Queen Mary was digested by the people We see in the case of my Lord Dier 1. Eliz. sol 165. That the Merchant found great greif at it and made exclamation and suit to Queen Elizabeth to be unburdened of it Orig. in Scac. 48. E. 3. Rot. 2. R. Thes 1. Eliz. dier so 165. The very reason of their grief expressed in that case is because it was not set on by Parliament but by the Queens absolute power So that was the ground of that complaint the very point of right This cause was referred to all the Judges to report whether the Qu. might set on this Imposition without assent of Parliament They divers times had conference about it but have not yet made report for the King which is an infallible presumption that their opinions were not for him for it is a certain rule among us that if a question concerning the Kings Prerogative or his profit be referred to the Judges if their opinions be for the King it will be speedily published and it were indiscretion to conceal it but if there be no publication then we make no doubt but that their opinions are either against the King or at least they stick and give none for him The same Queen Mary upon restraint of bringing in of French Commodities occasioned by the then wars with France set an Imposition upon Gascoyn Wines which continueth yet So the Kingdom of England by the injustice of that Prince was clogged with these two heavy Impositions contrary to the right of the Kingdom and the Acts of her Progenitors Queen Elizabeth set on that upon sweet Wines which grew also upon the occasion of the troubles with Spain That upon
Allome was none it was rather a Monopoly to Master Smith the Customer of London for the ingrossing of all Allomes into his own hands for which priviledge he gave a voluntary Imposition upon that Commodity It was like the priviledge granted to John Pechey of the sweet Wines by E. 3. for which the Patentee was called into the Parliament House 50. E. 3. and was there punished and his Patent taken away and cancelled What Impositions have been set on in the Kings time I need not express they are set down particularly in the Book of Rates that is in print they are not easily numbered The time for which they are raised is not short the Patent prefixed to that book bearing date 28 Julii 6 Jacobi will instruct you sufficiently in that point they be limited to the King his Heirs and Successors which I suppose is the first estate of Free simple of Impositions that ever man read of My eighth and last Observation is upon Tunnage and Poundage given to the King of this Realm upon Wares and Merchandizes exported and imported which is an Imposition by Act of Parliament and as it will appear was given out of the peoples good will as a very gratification to the King to enjoyn him thereby from the desire of voluntary Impositions and to conclude him by that gift in Parliament from attempting to take any other without assent of Parliament for after the ceasing of voluntary Impositions these Parliamentary ones were frequent in the times of the King that succeeded but they were never given but for years with express caution how the money should be bestowed As towards the defence of the Seas protection of Traffick or some such other publick causes Sometimes special sequestrators made by Act of Parliament by whose hands the money should be delivered as 5. R. 2. cap. 3. in a printed Statute 5. R. 2. Rot. Par. 7. R. 2. n. 13.10 R. 2. n. 12.7 R. 2. n. 12. The Rates that were given were very variable sometimes 2 s. Tunnage and 6 d. Poundage as 7. R. 2. 3 s. Tunnage and 12 d Poundage 10. R. 2. which grants were not to endure the longest of them above a year 18 d. Tunnage 6 d. Poundage in 17. R. 2. 3 s. Tunnage and 12 d. Poundage granted to H. 4. in the thirteenth year of his reign for a certain time in which Statute there is this clause That this aide in time to come should not be taken for an example to charge the Lords and Commons in manner of Subsidy unless it be by the wills of the Lords and Commons and that by a new grant to be made in full Parliament in time to come This clause in good and proper construction may be taken to be a very convention between the King and his people in Parliament that he should not from thenceforh nor any of his Successors set on Impositions without assent of Parliament The like Imposition was granted to H. 5. Rot. Par. 1. H. 5. n. 17. in the the first year of his reign for a short time towards the defence of the Realm and safeguard of the Sea upon condition expressed in the Act that the Merchants Denizens and strangers coming into the Realm with their Merchandizes should be well and honestly used and handled paying the said Subsidy as in the time of his Father and his noble Progenitors Kings of England without oppression or extortion In the end of which Act the Commons protested being bound by any grant in time to come for the purposes aforesaid H. 6. in the one and thirtieth year of his reign Rot. Par. 31. H. 6.12 E. 4. c. 3.6 H. 8. c. 12.1 E. 6. c. 13.1 Mar. c. 18.1 Eliz. c. 19.1 Jac. c. 33. had Tunnage and Pound age given him for his life E. 4. had it given him the third year of his reign as it appeareth in a Statute 12. E 4. cap. 3. H. 8. in the sixth year of his reign and all since in the first year of their reigns have had it given them for term of their life and being now so certainly setled do reach further at that from which they are in conscience and honor excluded by this voluntary gratification For can any man give me a reason why the people should give this Imposition of Tunnage and Poundage above the due Custom upon all Commodities if the King by his Prerogative might set on Impositions without assent of Parliament and were not that a weak action in a King to take that of his people as a benevolence from them with limitation of the same and in what it should be imploied and how they will be used for it and for what time he shall have it which he might justly take without their consents unclogged of these unpleasing incumbrances The Statute of Tunnage and Poundage made in our times that are altogether inclined to flattery do yet retain in them certain shews and rumors of those antient Liberties although indeed the substance be lost 1. Jac. c. 33. as in the Statute 1. Jac. cap 32. We declare that we trust and have sure confidence of his Majesties good will towards us in and for the keeping and sure defending of the Seas and that it will please his Highness that all Merchants as well Denizens as strangers coming into this Realm be well and honestly entreated and demeaned for such things whereof Subsidy is granted as they were in the time of the Kings Progenitors and Predecessors without oppression to them to be done By this clause as it now continueth the true intent of this Statute appeareth to be that there ought no other Imposition to be laid upon Merchants besides these given by this Statute and this intention hath been well interpreted by use and practice from the time of E. 3. to the time of Queen Mary as before is declared Thus much of this last reason made from observation and the action of our Nation I will answer now such main objections as have been made against the peoples right and have not been touched by me obiter in my passage through this discourse That which hath been most insisted upon is this that the King by his prerogative Royal hath the custody of the Havens and Ports of this Island being the very gates of this Kingdom that he in his royal function and office is onely trusted with the keys of these gates that he alone hath power to shut them and to open them when and to whom he in his Princely wisdom shall see good that by the Law of England he may restrain the persons of any from going out of the Land or from coming into it That he may of his own power and discretion prohibit exportation and importation of goods and Merchandizes and out of his prerogative and preheminence the power of imposing as being derivative doth arise and result for Cui quod majus est licet ei quod est minus licitum est So their reason briefly is